NEW YORK -- The Toronto Maple Leafs moved a step closer to their first playoff berth since 2004 on Wednesday night, securing a point with a 3-2 shootout loss to the New York Rangers. Meanwhile, Toronto coach Randy Carlyle gave his team's fans more reason to scratch their heads.

On Friday, Carlyle put forward a theory that the NHL has seen its concussion rate rise because players wear helmets, thereby making players' heads hotter, and that the heat caused brains to expand. "The brain is closer to the skull," he said. "Think about it."

Toronto went a stretch of 24:33 without a shot against the New York Rangers. (AP Photo)

You can maybe give Carlyle a pass for mixing up principles of thermodynamics and neurobiology, as he is a hockey coach and not a scientist. As a hockey coach, his analysis of his team's performance on Wednesday was pretty troubling, though.

"I think that we played very well for about 53 minutes," Carlyle said. "There were about seven or eight minutes in the second period where we let the game get away from us and it seemed to shift on us where they gained momentum from their power play and we lost momentum from ours. We didn't have a very good power play, didn't really create any zone time, and it changed the momentum of the game. Then we didn't play fast like we normally do, and consequently, we gave up two goals. You can't afford that at this time of the year."

The Leafs had two power plays in the game, one during the second period and one during the third. Those opportunities with the man advantage generated zero shots on net. Zero was also the number of shots that Toronto put on net over a stretch of 24:33 spanning the second and third periods until Phil Kessel scored his second goal of the game on an odd-man rush with James van Riemsdyk with 11:55 left in regulation.

It is possible to play well without getting a ton of shots on goal, but while getting none for nearly half a game? What did Carlyle think of his team going more than 24 minutes between shots? He was asked how much of a concern that was.

"I didn't even know that stat," Carlyle said. "Stats are for you guys. I'm not going to worry about it. We got a point and we're going to move on. We got three out of four points and we're going to build on that."

Back up a second. "Stats are for you guys." Not getting a shot on goal for more than a period's worth of game action is not the kind of fancy analytic creation that pits old school against new school. All that was necessary to track the Leafs' shot drought was a pair of eyeballs and the Madison Square Garden scoreboard, whose only features aside from the score of the game are a clock and a running tally of each team's shots. Even Carlyle's players were aware that they had gone a ridiculously long time without making Henrik Lundqvist do any work.

"I remember looking up in the second period and seeing (the shot counter) at 16," said Tyler Bozak, Toronto's top-line center. "Then, in the middle of the third, I looked, and it was still at 16. I was thinking to myself, 'are they screwing up, or have we not got a shot?' The (Rangers) played good. They're a desperate team right now, fighting for a playoff spot, and they played a good game, we've got to give them credit."

That is fair. The Rangers did play well during that stretch. John Tortorella was asked about his team holding the Leafs without a shot for 24-plus minutes, and said, "I think it's reflective of the way everybody played. I thought they had a concentration on it, and a little bit of that. I don't think we forechecked overly well, but we did a much better job in the neutral zone, and then in our end zone we really concentrated on the middle of the ice. It was sloppy at times, ugly at times, but I really liked the way they responded and found a way to get through it."

Carlyle talked about the results -- getting one point, and three out of four from the Leafs' home-and-home with the Rangers. Tortorella, without using one of his go-to words, talked about the process, acknowledging what his team did right and what it did wrong.

Is it possible that Carlyle is simply reluctant to tip his hand about how he is feeling, and that he is privately seething over his team's lack of opportunities created for such a long stretch of an important game? Sure. But it's important to remember that his claim of 53 good minutes came without prompting and that when he was questioned about something that could even be noticed by the players in the game, his response was, "Stats are for you guys."

If Carlyle does not want to talk about how his team's Corsi percentage is the lowest in the Eastern Conference, indicating a habitual lack of possession, that's fine. If he doesn't want to talk about the Leafs having the highest PDO (the sum of a team's shooting percentage and save percentage at even strength) in the NHL, indicating that Toronto has had better puck luck than could be expected to continue over the long term, that's fine too. But if Carlyle honestly believes that his team played well for 53 out of 65 minutes in a game where the Leafs went 24:33 between shots; that is as big of a problem as, well, going 24:33 between shots in an NHL game.